From the questions asked, I'd have to assume that to end up on the right you'd have to have answered that you'd agree with religion in schools and abortion only in the event of a threat to the mother, so, no, friend.
>all these liberal pussies
governments should enforce public morality and decency. and arrest imprison execute sodomite parades
Nah, answered as one might expect any libertarian to answer; socially tolerant, fiscally responsible.
Religion in schools is fine if they're privately run and openly disclose this bias, and I really don't care about abortions; it's not like I'm going to get some fellow faggot arse-pregnant, children are the worst STD.
Yeah, but abortion has ramifications beyond heterosexuals.
If someone thinks they're unfit to have a child, the last thing you wanna do is make them have that child.
>Religion in schools is fine if they're privately run and openly disclose this bias
I don't think so, at least with regard to children. Not that our public schools are any good, but at least we were held to a high standard compared to the local Catholic school, like in regard to how many days we actually had to be in class. Catholic kids had every other day off or some fucking saint or other.
And you may disagree here, but I don't think you should be able to teach shit like divine creationism or leave kids out of sex education, public or private. The fact that you have to have parents sign off in public schools for sex ed is fucking disgusting.
>but I don't think you should be able to teach shit like divine creationism or leave kids out of sex education, public or private. The fact that you have to have parents sign off in public schools for sex ed is fucking disgusting.
Well. Let me explain something to you. People have right to raise and teach their children whatever they want. It is Their children. Not yours.
took it, got left-libertarian (F*ck no) when it should have been left-authortarian. what went wrong?
The government is a necessary evil, if we have to have them in our lives they should do their best to better the people, and stay out when they aren't needed
Also I should add. The fact that you want to discuss sex with 10 years old children in schools is disgusting and this is reason why I teach my children lgbt people are pedos and to stay away from them. no adult should discuss sex with children in school. you are pervert and sex criminal
And I disagree with that because I think children should have more rights in this country, A, and B, teaching religion to children at such a young age can have an effect on me, and if you can't effect me with your religion on a one-to-one basis, you shouldn't have the right to do so through your retarded child.
If I wanted to pull my child out of Algebra II, they'd tell me to fuck off, it's part of the curriculum, but a young person who's just about to, or already going through puberty needs their parents' permission to learn about their own bodies? No, no, no.
I mean, you're trolling at this point, but there is such a thing as age-specific information.
I graduated in 2011 without ever being told, in an academic setting, that the penis goes into the vagina to conceive a child.
That's some pretty basic information to not have been taught at eighteen years old, don't you think?
The only 'sex ed' I ever got in school was a video in 5th grade explaining that I would begin to bleed and develop breasts and hair. (And half the video was explaining how to shave. We each went home with a razor.)
The video never told me why I would menstruate or what the breasts would do, just that it was going to happen.
Now, I think it's a little late in the game at 5th and 6th grade to be beating around the bush so much, but it's evidence that it can be done.
>I want my children to stay ignorant on sex when they're gonna be viewing hardcore porn on the internet the moment they get access to it
Learning about sex is just as important as any other basic subject taught in school, it's considerably more applicable to EVERYONE than the majority of math/science shit they learn anyways
And no you shouldn't have the ability to raise your children completely independently from basic public education, they deserve autonomy too as per libertard principles
most people here are sane like I expected, but obviously we still have some degenerates
i'm looking at you op
LOLOLLOL xP not but seriously fuck you, you bigot
Yes, I certainly do, but only because we don't really have a 'standard' education in this country that every child must have.
If we had a standard, and that standard included things like sex ed, so long as you abide by those standards, I wouldn't mind home schooling. Like internet classes, I think some children are right for it.
A child's chances in life shouldn't be dictate by what information my parents decide to hold hostage from me.
I thought that then as a teenager, and I still think it now as adults.
Sorry if it's a radical notion, but I feel like we need to stop thinking of our children a little less like property and parents' dressup dolls, and more like future complete-humans and members of adult society.
what is it with your type of people and pretending opposing views don't exist? this is why you people suck at arguing because you don't even want to argue in the first place
and yes, i am a guy, ftm. thanks for assuming, cis trash
Sorry state of our driving tests aside, yeah bud, there is.
A libertarian would have no drivers licenses. One described it as being as ridiculous as needing a license to toast bread in their own toaster.
That shits retarded, not just anyone should be able to drive. Fucking dangerous.
>A child's chances in life shouldn't be dictate by what information my parents decide to hold hostage from me
What you don't seem to understand is that everyone has the right to live how they want to live and raise THEIR own child how they want to raise them. You sound collectivist as fuck to the point it is nauseating and frightening, also the fact that you think child rearing should be left up to the state and not the parent shows how inattentive your ideal of parenting is. You're the type of person that would let your children starve because you leave it up to the state. So thankful scum like you will never reproduce and your sick mentality will die with you.
>but I feel like we need to stop thinking of our children a little less like property
But a child literally is the responsibility and owned by their parent. It's called guardianship. I'm so thankful someone like you will never reproduce.
You're a 2/10 troll made me reply
For some people, them being conservative is a bigger part of their lives than being lgbt. Until surprise surprise when a purported lgbt ally republican "candidate" comes along and suddenly become single issue voters.
Mostly hons though
T applies just as much in this notion of "anti-deviancy covenant"
I just read about that HHH guy and he's advocating for all sorts of the usual anti-degeneracy stuff /pol/ advocates. I just don't really get how you can have LGBT desires and yet welcome so much hatred against yourself. Even if you strongly believe in monogamy and child-focused families, that's still attainable through some sort of adoptive/surrogate framework.
It seems to me like it's bound to induce some cognitive dissonance or at least self-resentment.
>What you don't seem to understand is that everyone has the right to live how they want to live and raise THEIR own child how they want to raise them.
Yeah, that's bullshit. Children aren't property.
You can raise your child 'how you see fit' to the point where it starts to effect your child.
Purposefully feeding your child misinformation and withholding information is an affront to them. Especially information that is so immediate, useful, and impactfull as sex ed.
>the fact that you think child rearing should be left up to the state and not the parent shows how inattentive your ideal of parenting is.
That's not to say that the state can do no wrong, but there's nothing stopping you from telling little Jimmy Jr. that sex is wrong and that masturbating makes God cry when he gets home, but he deserves it as a human being to have access to the information he wants without having to go on the internet and hope he doesn't get the modern day equivalent to 'learning it on the playground'.
>You're the type of person that would let your children starve because you leave it up to the state.
And you're the type that allows a child to hear rumors of 'double bagging' their dick, while you wonder why all these unwanted pregnancies are happening.
>But a child literally is the responsibility and owned by their parent. It's called guardianship. I'm so thankful someone like you will never reproduce.
It shouldn't be your right to purposefully handicap your child.
It's a mechanism of distancing yourself from the lgbt herd mentality that is known to tilt left. That somehow you lack individuality or agency if you're gay and happen to hold progressive beliefs, do you come up with self serving rhetoric that enables you to side with the opposite side
>I support an ideology that actively works against people like myself, that makes me SMART! Unlike you SHEEPLE who just go along with a 'self serving' ideology
How does it actively work against myself?
>inb4 Muslim immigration
I'm against all forms of theology, now what?
These socially conservative libertarians literally support exclusion and derision of "deviant" people such as homosexuals and trannies, it is as "actively against themselves" as can get.
Are you going to pretend as if conservatism and and the right are friendly to gays?
>I can dictate everything my child does
>I should be allowed to literally own a human being
>this is somehow compatible with any conception of freedom
Yeah I'm pretty sure you're the one who's trolling.
And I am planning to have kids actually, I will even teach them rational green-square principles and encourage them to spread their ideology.
Obviously not, that's exactly what I was trying to say in my post.
Maybe I misunderstood the intention of that frog meme above
Yeah, we're in agreement here. I was being sarcastic.
My point is, I have a problem with the blanket view that if you're part of the 'group', your opinions are invalidated.
As in, 'Oh, of course you're LIBERAL! Typical gay'. Like all gay liberals are liberals, not because they won't support a view that hates them, but because they're morons who can't think for themselves.
It's not 'herd mentality', it's self preservation, for one.
Keep in mind the questions they're asking.
An anarchy fag I am not. A libertarian I am not.
Just so happens that everything they ask you about being restricted or not happens to be something I agree with being free. (Like abortion.) And really grade school shit like the 'authority should be questioned'/'making peace with the system' bits.
I [dis]agreed with it, but it makes you more cringey than you'd actually describe yourself.
Blue square is literally cuck-tier. You essentially want to bend the knee to some government that tells you what is socially acceptable based on arbitrary standards of what should be.
It's the DEFINITION of a cucked ideology.
That's funny, I've always seen the whole green area as "I'm an edgelord in their late teens or early 20's and have yet to experience the real world or mature"
t. grew up and left the green zone, just like you will.
I think edgelords would be inclined towards purple, as evident by every sexist/racist/monarchist on /pol/
Green is more like "hippie that thinks love and caring will solve everything", pretty immature but definitely not just 'edgy'
If I may ask, what square did you end up in? It's purple isn't it?
That's me. I used to be in the bottom corner of green when I was an edgy athiest late teen/early 20's faggot. Now I'm 27 and much more sensible. I don't really care about people in the blue and purple squares, whatever man. I tolerate other people's opinions for the most part, even if they differ vastly from mine. But anyone in the green square, I see as an immature kid basically.
Also, I must add, this test is hugely flawed and the questions are very loaded. Even the graph is fucking biased, you can tell some green square faggot made it easily, that's why the green square is green, showing a "positive" connotation, the red showing a "negative" connotation, and the two others also carrying connotations as well. It's a really shitty biased test.
So it seems like you still support the same degree of economic restriction, just agreeing that authoritarianism is required to sustain it. I can't really see myself agreeing with that, but I am a young edgy atheist so I'm willing to concede I might change in a similar fashion.
The colour thing makes you sound kinda butthurt though
I'm not butthurt, I just think it's funny how often this test gets thrown around when it really is garbage. Look at it objectively. There is much more to political belief than "hurr communist vs libertarianism" and "fascism vs anarchy". Thus it is thoroughly flawed, purely off of that. Furthermore it puts me right about where Stalin would be and I'm actually pretty far from his ideals, not a communist at all. It's a flawed test. Answer it like Hitler would and you won't end up where they put Hitler on it. So on and so forth. It's just flawed, there are better tests, not that any of them are perfect.
It's just amusing how seriously people take this test.
I can only imagine your English teachers being so miserable because of how low your grades were, bringing down their average.
Here let me hold your hand and teach you how to argue: you need to not just make claims, but explain -why- they are correct and not just bullshit. Don't just make a statement, say why it is correct.
>It's not a green square which is fucked up
>You have fucked up in these years and it is really sad.
How did I become fucked up and why is it sad?
Also, you don't even know my political beliefs my young friend. How can you make such assumptions?
So you're incapable of supporting your points? What a shame.
All you do is fling out shit, you fling out your feels, your fee fees, you have no points. You have no beliefs. You operate on feelings alone, you don't actually hold any of your beliefs with any conviction, as you are incapable of defending them. With every post, all you're doing is digging that hole deeper, and making yourself look worse. You can't even hold an argument, or any sort of proper discussion for that matter.
There is no venom, I'm quite happy with my life. You just are inserting some strawman in place of me, a strawman with whom I have nothing to do. You don't even know what you're attacking, you're just attacking, and in a very childlike manner. Start trying to rationalize things instead of throwing feels around, your life will improve and you will begin to actually win arguments.
Read the file name, look at the picture. This sums up all of your posting.
Mind if I ask which square you reside in? Green?
>Mind if I ask which square you reside in? Green?
Violet. And I still think you are a very sad person. I don't have to to make your life even more sad.
Are you from Russia or some other fucked up country?
>And I still think you are a very sad person
Here you're just restating your feels. It's like you have zero reading comprehension. I just thoroughly explained to you why that makes you look like an idiot, and you continue. You're the sad one here. You don't even know a single thing about my political beliefs. With which political parties do you think I'd align myself? Which historical figures do you think I'd idolize? Say them, because you're probably wrong on all counts. You don't even understand my beliefs, because this test is thoroughly flawed.
It's like everything I said flew right over your head. Why can't you defend any of your statements or beliefs?
Close, former Russian clay actually. Alaska. Since you seem rather dense I must point out that this is part of the USA.
I implore you once again, elaborate on your statements, back them up. Why do you think I am a very sad person? Why do you make this assumption when you know nothing about me or my political beliefs?
You are the sad person here, because you can't even back up the childlike statements you make. Here I am trying to better your conversational skills and it does nothing.
>oh shit he's arguing circles around me, I better throw another dismissive emotional statement
Looks like we got a sore loser here ladies and gents :3
Watch, watch, he'll chuck another whiny pointless emotional statement.
Also nothing looks sadder than your English. You should brush up before even trying to use it with native speakers again.
Maybe I just have to fling emotional single-sentence statements back at you, since that's all you seem to be able to comprehend :^)
How the fuck do you get here, I put the most literally hitler answers and it makes me a commie jew fuck everytime.
>wanting to fuck sweet boipussy and wanting government funding for planned parenthood while simultaneously not wanting shitheads to game the welfare system makes me a moron
Hello retards. I have come bearing groundbreaking news. Firstly, the test is extremely bad. It commits nearly every stats fallacy in the book. Secondly, this cold war era cross viewing of politics is no longer relevant. Thirdly, you do not have a genetic, inner political alignment or something. Odds are if you manged to complete the test you don't even know your candidates economic policies or their impacts.
So I decided to show you guys my exact answers to give you a better idea of things. Still, not getting the full picture of my exact beliefs. Keep in mind I don't think my ideal form of government would ever come about, but a guy can dream can't he?
For the record I'm pretty tolerant of people having beliefs in any of these squares. Have an open mind, there is no reason not to be civil during political discussions. The incivility often found in political discussions is one of the tools through which democracy has been perverted into a tool to control the masses, and thus the government. I think we all can agree that in a democratic society it would be best for all people with voting rights to be maximally informed on their decisions, rather than making them for shallow, emotionally charged reasons.
I differ from the norm in that I do not think that the average person is qualified or capable of making such huge decisions for their country, and that democracy opens the door for predators to influence the largely uninformed masses.
read this post
here are some of the cringier questions
>I "always" "support" my country, whether it's "right" or "wrong"
>It's either race or class politics buddy
>all these peasant tier political issues like LGBT rights and religious freedoms
>doesn't even know the main point of prison is to create fear of committing a crime
I totally agree that this test is fundamentally flawed (cringey :DD). Many of the questions are loaded, and there is a heavy bias present throughout. A lot of these issues are not the type of question that should have an "either A or B" answer.
I imagine the creator may have been in the green square but who knows.
It's close, but doesn't perfectly fit my ideals by any means, and on top of this is a very "charged" label that I wouldn't want to assign to myself. As a half-Jew, I cannot agree perfectly for obvious reasons, at least with the NSDAP iteration of national socialism, but I can be objective and say they had some things right, even if they didn't exactly like my kind.
I will say that a national socialist should land in the red square, and that where they put Hitler on this graph would be the incorrect location. Having a masters in History, specializing in Nazism and Fascism, I would be highly qualified to plug in the answers that I think Hitler or an NSDAP member would give. When I do that, they're firmly in the red square. This and many other things add to my thoughts that this test is flawed.
The same thing can be said for other figures they plot on this graph. One way their bias shows, is in the historical figures they chose to place on the map, and where they chose to place them. For example, they chose Ghandi (who actually thought Hitler was a pretty cool guy, even addressed him as "dear -friend-"), a man generally viewed positively, for the green square, Stalin, a man generally viewed as a monster, in the red square, and they stuck Hitler with Thatcher. For the purple square, they picked someone most people wouldn't know of, Milton Friedman. Hilariously, he influenced Margaret Thatcher, who they stuck way up there in the blue square. I don't think political beliefs can even properly be expressed through such a graph, particularly with the questions they're asking, but either way the biases of the creator or creators are quite apparent.
The framing of some of the questions is such that I can't really give an accurate answer and hence a skewed view of my political orientation. I'm probably a bit closer to red than green.
I could write thousands of words on this but I will try to keep it relatively brief.
National socialism didn't bring much that was "new" to the table, so to say. Much of its ideals are things that have been going around for hundreds, even thousands of years. To say I found common ground, while accurate, is slightly misleading in that what brought me to that common ground was not national socialism itself.
The idea of having the "nation-state" or a country composed of a mostly homogeneous group of people, with common background (be it racial, religious, a mix, or many other things), for example, is one of these ideals which I support, and which has been around for thousands of years in various forms. "Tribalism" might be a better way to put it. In my ideal form of government the country/nation (same thing in this case) would be composed of a group of people with much in common. Ideally the people would see the government and all other citizens as an extension of themselves, and conversely they'd also see themselves as an extension of their nation. Each individual would be part of a whole. It is clearly displayed in national socialism, but you can also find it in the modern day. Great example - Israel. A country that very much is a Jewish "nation-state" wherein the people are by and large unified under the common identity of "Jewishness" very much embodied in their "right-of-return" laws among many other things.
I think that it would be best for all peoples across the globe to exist in such nation states. France for Frenchmen, Spain for Spaniards, Germany for Germans, Poland for Poles, so on and so forth. Name the people, and their common identity, and I think they could have their own nation-state. Ideally all would work to better themselves and do the best they can for their people.
I'm running out of space and this could be many posts, I have barely even scratched the surface here, I can continue, if you want me to. But I might get a little long-winded
I'm gonna go through all of these for the hell of it.
Way too far left
Pretty alright but he ain't racist
TAXATION IS THEFT
I think this is near Hitler level? He was a little further left though.
Absolute worst, how can this actually work in society?
Well I mean yeah...but you aren't betting the people if you take money away from those who have worked hard to earn it. Also left governments are almost always big.
Once again, awful.
Libertarians are sexist? Have I missed a joke here?
Slow down there buddy
Nooo, red square worst square
Eat the rich lmao
Alright I guess
Holy fuck anarchy time
Get further right and I'll have some respect.
Yes, but you'll be fine. Just don't share your views on politics with conservatives. Ever.
No, it's not. Some liberals are nice, some are fucking ass holes, some conservatives are great businessmen, others are salty, etc. A persons political stance does not represent their personality.
Join the club
Holy shit I had a result like this once. Probably the best spot to be in.
Too far again
Wanna get something to eat?
Sometimes can be inaccurate since the issues can be quite narrow
Hitler didn't have the internet.
That far in purple square: enjoy excessive crime rates.
Fucking great one anon, kek
I should have read the file-name honestly
What do you expect man?
Doubt it man but w/e
Okay that's a lot of liberals. Who's paying for your college degrees guys?
>Who's paying for your college degrees guys?
Nobody. Everything I have I paid for myself.
>I should have read the file-name honestly
Everyone should have used the same file-name, given your responses :DD
You show your ignorance of the fact that this test is utterly flawed, and also your ignorance of what each place on this graph really means in practice.
I suggest you read my posts, too. Read these, don't just give your baseless rating on the graph:
I clearly explain how and why this test is flawed, and how a statement such as are entirely incorrect:
>I think this is near Hitler level? He was a little further left though.
That said it's virtually impossible to pull someone's political beliefs from just their plot on that graph, or even the way they answered the questions. Political beliefs can become so much more complex than this graph is capable of explaining. I'm not a national socialist but I land right about where one actually would on it. Take everything with a grain of salt, try to see the bias in others, the bias in tests such as these. You will find it is quite prevalent. Suppress your own emotional urges to strike out at those with different ideologies than you, and instead try to calmly have discourse on the issues you wish to discuss. To post this graph alone with no explaining of your beliefs is to leave far too much to the imagination, not that this graph is really useful at all.
Absolutely not. In fact, I believe that the world is overpopulated to an utterly insane degree. If this continues, there -will- be a collapse, due to finite resources, and that collapse will be catastrophic. Think - literally billions of people dying right at the start, an inglorious death from diarrhea, from drinking tainted water in their quest for survival. Billions will follow, dying in many ways. Anyone who survives after the giant wave of death subsides, will find a world so plentiful in resources that there will be little want or need in their lives.
I think 200 million is a good global human population. We're over 7 billion. Bringing immigrants in kills the national identity, it kills the culture, it, in effect, kills the people. Bring enough immigrants in and your culture, your people, cease to exist. In other words, in my opinion, immigration into a homogeneous nation is genocide.
Growth for the sake of growth is a very flawed, irresponsible idea. I myself feel that a more natural lifestyle is vastly preferable and good for the human soul/psyche. As a kid my family lived in the middle of nowhere. To a great extent, we lived off of the land, and had little worries. Our lives felt complete. I intend to one day buy my own property in the middle of nowhere, and live on it, my own little chunk of paradise where I can lead my simple and very human existence.
With a low enough population, resource scarcity or source problems, and social welfare, become non-issues. I feel much of the problems in the world today stem from the fact that there are far too many of us on it. Declining, aging populations is a good thing. Once populations dwindle down, a very nice comfortable life can be had for all.
I know this track is not reversible though, and as I said in my first post, I do not think my ideal form of government will ever happen. This means that I think we are headed for an inevitable collapse, unless something is done about the fact that there are far, far too many humans.
Humanity shouldn't be exploiting the Earth as hard as it can, if anything, it should be the great shepherd of the Earth and all creatures upon it - protecting and conserving our only planet, which itself gave and gives us life. Right now our species is being incredibly irresponsible, and to continue on this path will in fact lead to disaster. I for one think it is far too late. That is why I plan to live off the land once again, before that cataclysm strikes. It may not strike in our lifetimes, it may not even strike for hundreds or thousands of years, but I feel such an existence is just about the best one can do in this world. If you can have your own piece of paradise, your own plot of land that can sustain your life, or the life of your family, friends, neighbors, or your "monkeysphere" then you have so much more than the majority of people on this planet have. It amazes me that even with over 7 billion people on the planet, I can still have that little chunk of self-sustaining land. I can only hope that such uninhabited or sparsely inhabited chunks of land, rich in natural resources, can continue to exist, for the future of our own species and all others. It really illustrates the vast wealth and lack of need, lack of scarcity, that would be experienced with a more sane number of humans on our planet.
Right now, most regions could not claim to have such natural wealth, in comparison to the number of humans they have. Japan, for example, would not have the natural resources unto itself to sustain its population.
If the current trend continues, the entire Earth will not have the resources to keep all of humanity going. Our scarcities already drive us to live in very unnatural conditions, in little boxes in cities doing things our ancestors never would have done, causing stresses that they never would have had. The simple life is the best life, and the simple life would be something we all enjoyed if we had a vastly lower population.
>resource scarcity or source problems, and social welfare, become non-issues.
How about state pensions? Or health insurance? If we only had 200 million people in the world, would we even be able to have a functioning healthcare system?
What happens if you're living off the land and your crops fail? What if you become too old to farm and you don't have any children?
Here you go.
Used to be at approximately the same place on red, but 4chan changed me. No way in hell any of you should be in charge.
>would we even be able to have a functioning healthcare system?
Of course. No issues. There will be less people to treat and more resources to use to treat them. A small population retaining the technology and massive wealth of knowledge we have today will enjoy very easily-had widespread healthcare of modern standards or better.
>How about state pensions? Or health insurance?
Again, due to the lack of scarcity of resources, neither of these would be issues. There'd be enough to go around for everyone.
>What happens if you're living off the land and your crops fail?
If you didn't prepare in advance, to be ready just in case your crops failed, it would be your own fault (or rather, your society/monkeysphere's fault) and you'd die out. Natural selection at its finest. Being prepared though, would easily allow you and your people to survive, and without scarcity, it would be much easier to prepare. Many foods can be prepared so as to prevent or significantly delay spoilage, many don't even expire. Our ancestors had failed crops many times, many droughts, many periods of starvation, yet here we are.
>What if you become too old to farm and you don't have any children?
Then your monkeysphere or "people" take care of you.
Why? Because in my ideal world people would go "US US US" instead of the all-too-prevalent modern view of "ME ME ME"
Is my head in the clouds here? Absolutely. But I said that from the start. Right from the start, I said I don't think my ideal will ever come true. But a guy can dream can't he?
Hitler didn't care about politics really, he was neither a socialist nor a conservative, he felt he needed to get rid of the jews and other bad minorities and disband ties with the countries he didn't like and that's what he did, hitler was neither left nor right.